Skip to main content

No evidence California cellphone ban decreased accidents, says researcher

In a recent study, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder found no evidence that a California ban on using hand-held cellphones while driving decreased the number of traffic accidents in the state in the first six months following the ban. The findings, published in the journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, are surprising given prior research that suggests driving while using a cellphone is risky; past laboratory studies have shown that people who talk on a cellphone wh
July 18, 2014 Read time: 3 mins

In a recent study, a researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder found no evidence that a California ban on using hand-held cellphones while driving decreased the number of traffic accidents in the state in the first six months following the ban.

The findings, published in the journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, are surprising given prior research that suggests driving while using a cellphone is risky; past laboratory studies have shown that people who talk on a cellphone while using driving simulators are as impaired as people who are intoxicated.

“If it’s really that dangerous, and if even just a fraction of people stop using their phones, we would expect to find some decrease in accidents,” said Daniel Kaffine, an associate professor of economics at CU-Boulder and an author of the study. “But we didn’t find any statistical evidence of a reduction.”

California enacted its ban on hand-held cellphones on 1 July 2008. For the new study, Kaffine and his co-authors—Nicholas Burger of the 2036 RAND Corporation and Bob Yu of the Colorado School of Mines—looked at the number of daily accidents in the six months leading up to the law’s enactment and compared that to the number of accidents in the six months following the ban.

They chose to look a relatively narrow window of time to reduce the number of other variables that might have an impact on accident rates, including the possible introduction of safer cars into the market, an economic recession that leads to a drop in overall driving, or other changes to state traffic laws.

The researchers also corrected their data to account for precipitation, which can cause more accidents; gas prices, which can affect how many vehicles are on the road; and other unobservable factors that may have influenced accidents.

The study was not designed to determine why accidents did not decrease, but there are several possible reasons, Kaffine said. One is that people switched from using hand-held devices to hands-free devices, such as ones with Bluetooth technology. Prior studies in the lab have suggested that both types of devices may be equally distracting.

It’s also possible that people were not complying with the new law, though past studies suggest that cellphone use dropped in other states when bans were enacted.

Kaffine says the reason could also be that the type of people who would drive recklessly using a cellphone are generally prone to distracted driving and would potentially cause accidents by fiddling with things, such as CD players or GPS devices, if they weren’t using their cellphones.

It may also be  that past studies of the risk of using cellphones while driving overestimate the danger. Since many of these studies were done in the lab, it could be that people perform differently using a driving simulator than they do on a real road.

Determining which, if any, of these reasons may have led to the ineffectiveness of California’s ban could lead to better cellphone policies in the future. For example, if the problem is just that compliance is low, then an increase in fines might be all that’s necessary to decrease accidents.

“Disentangling these effects will be useful for policymakers in other states who are considering policies to address distracted driving,” Kaffine said. “However, our results suggest that simply banning hand-held cellphone use may not produce the desired increase in traffic safety.”

For more information on companies in this article

Related Content

  • Give offending drivers credit for good behaviour
    July 27, 2012
    Andrew Rooke and Dave Marples of Technolution B.V. take a look at what can be done to address a long-standing problem: the all-or-nothing approach of automated enforcement. To start, a brief history of speeding: on 14 November 1896, the first Veteran Car Run was staged in England from London to Brighton. It was organised to celebrate new British legislation to raise the maximum speed of vehicles from four to 14mph while also removing the need for a person waving a red flag to walk in front of the car and wa
  • A coalition of the willing: iATL
    April 5, 2024
    A living lab on the streets of Georgia, US, is helping to improve traffic safety by real-world deployments of technology. ITS International talks to the founder and some of the partners at the Infrastructure Automotive Technology Laboratory
  • E-scooter fires spark TfL ban 
    December 16, 2021
    Defective lithium-ion batteries to blame; £1,000 fines for people who don't comply
  • IAM responds to illegal phone use study
    February 26, 2015
    The UK’s Institute of Advanced Motorists has responded to the Department for Transport study carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) into the prevalence of illegal mobile phone use while driving, saying that the results are disappointing but not at all surprising. The figures show that, in 2014, 1.1 per cent of drivers in England and Scotland were observed holding a phone in their hand with a further 0.5 per cent observed holding the phone to their ear, equating to more than 470,000 motorists